1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1SIdMb-0001Z4-CY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:04:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.41; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SIdMT-000273-Qb
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:04:21 +0000
Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so5769134wgb.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.86.132 with SMTP id p4mr3174745wiz.15.1334311447673; Fri,
13 Apr 2012 03:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.230.218 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpc5CZ9Sx4MwPdeS0-5frnV9B+mJ5OwcPoUVrygTawiJBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpc5CZ9Sx4MwPdeS0-5frnV9B+mJ5OwcPoUVrygTawiJBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:04:07 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Jd4gxfT-KMHO-gPxjZkxbvFysO8
Message-ID: <CANEZrP28Wf6RVOgd85COkE-vLdtCbyQYa0b9QvPFt9W1DzNJag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1SIdMT-000273-Qb
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin TX fill-or-kill deterministic
behavior
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:04:21 -0000
It sounds OK as long as you exclude nLockTimed transactions.
That said, if you broadcast a transaction that does not meet the fee
rules, you should be able to notice that it wasn't accepted by your
peers immediately. Today it's painful because the protocol isn't very
chatty - in bitcoinj I plan to do this by announcing to half the
connected peers and waiting to see if the transaction comes back on
the other half. Getting a response from a peer that the TX was dropped
for reasons {x,y,z} is a better design but needs another protocol
change.
So having transactions expire would address the case where somebody
broadcasts a transaction that successfully propagates across the
network, but then isn't actually accepted by miners for some reason.
For instance due to a change in the default fee schedules. That risk
can be mitigated somewhat by being careful about such changes (timed
phase ins set multiple months out so people have time to upgrade,
alerts announcing it, etc).
I'm not sure we should be encouraging users to attach fees to
transactions though. Even if you can replace a transaction after a
couple of days, the user experience of trying to get the fee "right"
is atrocious. I don't think any sensible merchant will actually be
willing to put their customers through this nonsense. If somebody
broadcasts a transaction that successfully propagates across a big
chunk of the network but then gets stuck due to lacking sufficient
fees, the best fix is for the merchant to broadcast another
transaction that spends the first and increases the fees on it that
way. After this happens a few times, if I was a merchant I'd be
tempted to just ask buyers to submit the TX to me directly and I'll
handle keeping up with what miners currently charge and attaching
fees. I don't want my customers to have to think about this and have
trades spuriously fail when they forget.
That design requires a minor change to how fees are calculated inside
the memory pool, to include fees on un-included dependencies. But that
seems fairly uncontroversial to me. It's best for users, merchants and
miners to not leave chains of transactions in limbo when together
their fees add up to the minimum required amount.
|
